Wilson v. Christ Alive Christian Ctr.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Wilson v. Christ Alive Christian Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
| Wilson v Christ Alive Christian Ctr. |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 05315 |
| Decided on October 05, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: October 05, 2021
Before: Webber, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Index No. 303128/12 Appeal No. 14286 Case No. 2020-01303
v
Christ Alive Christian Center et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Heslop & Dominique, LLP, Brooklyn (Garfield A. Heslop of counsel), for appellant.
Koster, Brady & Nagler, New York (Jason J. Lavery of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2019, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly found that this case involves a nonjusticiable controversy under the First Amendment (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007]). While plaintiff contends that the $230,000 payment she made to defendants five years before the action was commenced should not be considered a tithe, the record shows that the payment was, in fact, a tithe, and that plaintiff made it voluntarily. Tellingly, the $230,000 check made out to defendant Christ Alive Christian Center stated "tithe" in the memo section. The issues of plaintiff's motivation for tithing, and the proper amount of the tithe necessarily implicate the interpretation of religious doctrine and cannot be resolved through the application of neutral principles of law (id.).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 5, 2021
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.